The Poughkeepsie Journal is opposing the Orange County District Attorney’s Office's efforts to keep secret documents in the Angelika Graswald murder case.

Assistant District Attorney Andrew Kass contended earlier in May that if sealed Graswald documents were to be unsealed, it would be an embarrassment to unspecified people. The Journal, however, has argued the public’s right to a fair and open judicial system, which includes viewing what’s in court documents, trumps potential privacy issues. The Journal also noted the DA's unwillingness to offer the public redacted documents, which would hide sensitive information.

The Journal responded to the District Attorney’s Office’s opposition on Thursday in a signed memorandum of law along with an affidavit from News Director Kevin Lenihan.

“The District Attorney’s Office submits no factual information which would support a continuation of any sealing order,” Lenihan said in the affidavit. “...Beyond the public’s presumed right of access and the legal processes, unsealing these documents is of actual importance to the public because they are part of the factual fabric of this significant case, one where the defendant took a reduced plea.”

Graswald pleaded guilty in July 2017 in Orange County Court to criminally negligent homicide in the drowning death of her fiance, Vincent Viafore, 46, of Poughkeepsie. Nearly two years earlier in April 2015, Graswald was accused of killing Viafore when the couple took a kayaking trip on the Hudson River to Bannerman Island.

In response to the Journal’s initial request to unseal Graswald documents, Kass wrote that “the public’s right of access would be outweighed by the likely harm that would follow from disclosure.

“The matters concerned entirely collateral matters that had nothing to do with Graswald’s guilt or innocence or with any of her previously litigated suppression claims,” he wrote. “On the other hand, if made public, such a circumstance would serve only to embarrass and harm certain persons on the basis of unfounded accusations, rumor and innuendo.”

Kass has also argued that since Graswald filed a notice of appeal in the state Supreme Court’s Appellate Division in November 2017, the case has not closed and the reasons for sealing the documents remain valid. Kass said this potential appeal isn't impacted by the fact that Graswald waived her right to appeal as part of her plea deal.

The grounds on which the case is being appealed are unclear.

The Journal has noted there are only four sealed entries in Graswald file dated March 21, 2017: “Exhibit(s), Affidavit(s), Order to Show Cause, and a Decision/Order(s)/2.” The public doesn’t know what’s contained in the documents or even the nature of their contents.

The Journal’s memorandum of law submitted on Thursday emphasizes that Graswald’s sealed documents were the subject of an Order to Show Cause and should be judged under the First Amendment’s access standard. The 12-page memorandum includes legal bases for unsealing the documents, and makes the case that “neither the potential for embarrassment or damage to reputation, nor the general desire for privacy, constitutes good cause to seal court records.”

In his sworn statement, Lenihan said that — aside from not knowing what’s in the sealed documents — the public doesn’t know any of the factual bases for sealing the documents.

“In short,” Lenihan said, “the public is entitled to know that justice was served for all interested parties.”